SPORTS
Governors in Three States Restrict Trans Athletes
Republicans continue relentless attacks on trans youth across the nation
BY MATT TRACY & TAT BELLAMY-WALKER
In a span of just two days,
the governors of Arkansas
and Tennessee signed bills
banning transgender women,
girls, and non-binary individuals
from participating in school
sports.
Less than a week later, South
Dakota Governor Kristi Noem
signed two executive orders aiming
to restrict transgender women and
girls and some non-binary people
from school sports teams.
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson
signed his state’s bill on March
25 and Tennessee Governor Bill
Lee followed suit on March 26 with
similar legislation. The states became
the latest to enact such laws
in the weeks since Mississippi became
the fi rst state this year to approve
an anti-trans sports bill.
Arkansas’ “Fairness in Women’s
Sports Act,” or SB 354, restricts
students from participating in accordance
with their gender identity
and stipulates that athletes should
be separated based on “biological
sex.” Throughout the bill’s text,
legislators perpetuate transphobic
claims by pointing to “biological
differences” to make an argument
that there are unfair challenges
to cisgender women and girls in
sports.
Cisgender girls who feel transgender
athletes have negatively
impacted them can sue schools
for monetary damages. Violators
of this law could also face
retaliation from state and local
sports agencies and associations.
Since the bill’s passage, advocacy
groups have condemned the legislation.
Tennessee’s bill, meanwhile, requires
student-athletes in middle
school and high school to play according
to the information listed
on their “original” birth certifi cate
— which is clearly an attack on
non-binary and transgender individuals
in a state where folks are
not allowed to amend the sex on
their birth certifi cates. Those without
a birth certifi cate are required
to show some other sort of proof
South Dakota governor Kristi Noem issued two executive orders targeting trans athletes after a legislative effort hit a snag.
“indicating the student’s sex at the
time of birth.”
The legislation further adds to
the burden on trans youth by requiring
that “the student or the
student’s parent or guardian pay
any costs associated with providing
the evidence required to establish
the student’s gender at the
time of birth.”
After Governor Lee signed the
bill in Tennessee, the American
Civil Liberties Union responded
with a short message — “We’ll see
them in court.”
In South Dakota, Noem resorted
to executive orders after she
expressed reservations about the
State Legislature’s bill targeting
trans athletes. Noem issued two
different executive orders — one for
grade school sports and the other
for college sports — and although
the pair of directives have similar
wording, there are notable differences
between them. Both orders
start off by stating that “In South
Dakota, only females, based on
their biological sex… shall participate
in any girls’ or women’s athletic
event,” but the college order
is based on the sex listed on individuals’
“birth certifi cate issued at
time of birth,” while the order pertaining
to grade schools is based
on individuals’ sex listed on “their
birth certifi cate or affi davit provided
upon initial enrollment.”
The grade school order further
directs the South Dakota Department
of Education to “establish
a policy consistent with this Executive
Order and distribute the
policy to all public school districts
in the state.” That order is confi
ned to “a public school, a school
district, or an association,” while
the college-based order is limited
to the Board of Regents, which is
a governing body overseeing six
public universities in the state.
The college-based order asks the
Board of Regents to “take any and
all steps necessary within the law
of the state to legally implement
policies consistent with this Executive
Order.”
Some have questioned whether
Noem’s orders amount to an outright
ban on transgender athletes,
while others are wondering how
much legal power the orders have.
The difference in wording, however,
is notable nonetheless. It appears
that the college-based order specifi
cally refers to “birth certifi cate
issued at time of birth” in an effort
to prevent the inclusion of transgender
student-athletes who have
amended their respective birth
certifi cates.
“Only girls should play girls’
REUTERS/ELIJAH NOUVELAGE
sports,” Noem said in a written
statement on March 29. “Given
the legislature’s failure to accept
my proposed revisions to HB 1217,
I am immediately signing two executive
orders to address this issue:
one to protect fairness in K-12
athletics, and another to do so in
college athletics.”
In a letter to state lawmakers,
Noem wrote, “The orders resolve
the serious drafting errors I identifi
ed that made HB 1217 signifi -
cantly different from any other
state legislation pending across
the country.”
In the letter, Noem also demanded
that state lawmakers address
this issue during legislative sessions
in May and June.
“My executive orders temporarily
address the problem,” Noem wrote.
“I want to see this issue resolved
through legislation.”
Any state moving ahead with
efforts to restrict transgender
student-athletes is poised to encounter
signifi cant legal resistance
— especially under a new administration
and following the Bostock
v. Clayton County Supreme Court
decision. When Idaho’s State Legislature
passed a ban on trans
athletes last year, Chief US District
Judge for Idaho David C. Nye
blocked the legislation.
APRIL 8 - APRIL 21, 2 8 021 | GayCityNews.com
/GayCityNews.com
